I'll take 200 people hoping on the streetcar to various destinations at Main and 2nd after a Reds game than 150 people waiting in a line of parked cars in the parking garage or on 2nd St.

I agree that if the streetcar does what we expect it to, it will increase congestion. But it also allows accommodation for more people than there is currently. That's a key point.

 

If downtown were as vibrant without the streetcar as it will be with the streetcar, then you'd be right in saying it would reduce congestion. But with an increase in people downtown will come more cars. It's not a bad thing.

 

If we get a good transit network, we can start reducing congestion that exists currently, but the (lone) streetcar will quite likely create more congestion. Some of that can be dampened by strategically pricing parking along the route. This won't capture all of it, however.

 

You can bet, though, as congestion increases, streetcar ridership will also increase.

 

 

  Manhattan, Hong Kong, Paris, London, etc. all have very well developed mass transit systems and they are among the most congested places in the world. Plus, automobile traffic is not the only source of congestion. The transit systems themselves can be congested.

 

  The benefit of the streetcar is enhanced mobility, not less congestion.

 

  "All things being equal, a streetcar reduces congestion."

 

    All things are NOT equal. The streetcar proponents cite increased development as the primary benefit of the streetcar. In fact, for the streetcar to work economically, it HAS to result in increased development.

 

    Increased development is going to increase congestion, even if the new residents only drive 4000 miles per year.

 

Jesus, is this line of argument driving anyone else nuts, or just me?

 

Yes, we want mass transit, because it is by definition an efficient means of transport that makes possible a vibrant city.

 

Yes, we also understand that a vibrant urban environment means lots of people on the sidewalks and on the various modes of transit.  Call that "congestion," or whatever you want.

 

Yes, we are more than ready to deal with that; we have been waiting for it a long time.

 

Your struggle to find some sort of contradiction here is, frankly, tiresome.  I only mention that because I have to assume it is not your intent. 

 

 

 

  I am just responding to the words "Streetcars Reduce Congestion" in large print earlier in this thread.  :-o

 

  As I see it, the benefits of the streetcar might include increase mobility, increased development along with increased property value, and renewed interest in city living.  :-)

 

  The streetcar will NOT reduce congestion, reduce air pollution, or reduce dependence on foreign oil. 

A point that a lot of people seem to miss is that with efficient and extensive public transportation, you will still have a roughly similar absolute amount of congestion, but with more population density and fewer roads so the relative amount of congestion is less.  Take Chicago for example.  The Kennedy Expressway is a 10 lane highway (4 lanes each way plus the 2 reversible express lanes).  It is regularly very congested, but if the Blue Line and other L routes, as well as the many Metra commuter rail lines weren't there, it would still be a "regularly very congested" highway, only with 14 or even more lanes running through a much more depopulated neighborhood.  People are still stuck in traffic on the Kennedy just as long as if there was no mass transit, but there's fewer total people in that traffic jam on a smaller road than would be necessary otherwise.  If the CTA and Metra both went on strike, Chicago would be absolutely crippled by hundreds of thousands more cars trying to get downtown, and even when they did there wouldn't be anywhere to park.

 

Essentially, public transit increases the carrying capacity of a neighborhood beyond what can be accommodated only with roads.  In urban areas a certain level of congestion is a good thing, as natininja pointed out.  Congested roads are fully utilized, and they encourage people to seek alternative ways of getting around.  A number of years ago in school we had a presentation by Copenhagen's traffic engineer, who said that when a road become too congested, they REMOVE a lane.  They would make it a dedicated bus-only lane, or expand cycling facilities, to shift the traffic to other modes.  That's the real key, to bring other modes of travel that can carry more people more efficiently in that same space.  This is why I'm a little dismayed by the tenet around here that streetcars, buses, bike lanes, etc., must not impede automobile traffic.  They absolutely should impede auto traffic, so that it favors their own operation and makes them more attractive than driving.

 

Another thing to consider is that even car-centric areas that are well connected with a good street grid (as opposed to the typical suburban collector/distributor/arterial system) and a decent level of density have much lower total amounts of driving.  So anyone who lives within the city limits of a relatively light-density city (which much of Cincinnati outside the basin is) tends to drive less than someone in a transit-oriented suburb simply because of the closer proximity to all destinations.  The person in Hyde Park or Northside may go on just as many trips as someone in Mason or Anderson Township, but the trips are so much shorter that it makes a huge difference.  In a place like OTR, with good walkability and the streetcar, one would likely not have to drive at all to get anywhere within the neighborhood or to downtown or uptown.  There would be more traffic than today, both people coming into the neighborhood and going out, but the high density and close proximity to other destinations makes it much less of an impact on overall traffic.  The OTR resident could accomplish a week's worth of errands in the same amount of driving that someone who lives in West Chester would do just to get to work one day. 

 

And to Eight and State's comment, the streetcar may not reduce congestion when taking the resultant development into consideration, since OTR is so thoroughly underpopulated, but it most certainly will reduce air pollution and dependence on oil (foreign or otherwise) when taking that same development into account.  An extra 20,000 or so people in OTR means that many less living in a suburban location that requires more driving and more resources.  Shorter trips means less energy used, regardless of the source.  Since the streetcar is electrical, even though it's powered from coal, it's still more efficient than internal combustion engines in many different vehicles, and less polluting.   

    "Take Chicago for example."

 

    If Chicago didn't have it's transit, it would not have such a dense core. It would be completely different. Sure, if the transit disappeared for a day, the motorways would be more congested. But if the transit disappeared for ten years, the city would develop in a different way to adjust, probably by adding more auto-oriented sprawl around the periphery.

 

    "They absolutely should impede auto traffic..."

 

  I have said that the streetcar should not have to stop for traffic, ever, except to load or unload passengers. It is bad enough that a passenger has to wait through all of the stops. It would be even worse if a passenger has to also wait at traffic lights for cars.

 

  In the downtown area, the signals are timed for continuous movement at 25 mph. There's not much that can be done for streetcars without messing up the entire traffic system.

 

  In Over-the-Rhine, the traffic control can be modified to give the streetcar right of way, all the time. This will also help automobile traffic, on the north-south streets, but impede traffic on the east-west streets. Fortunately, Walnut and Main do not carry that much automobile traffic, so it's a good fit. The zig-zag route is just senseless: it will cause a lot of traffic conflicts. 

 

    Vine Street Hill carries moderate traffic. I'm not sure what can be done there.

 

    A short tunnel under McMillan and Calhoun would do wonders for the streetcar running times. Realizing that it is expensive, an analysis should be done to compare construction costs to operating costs. Remember, the faster the streetcar is, the more revenue it will collect in fares. A tunnel section here was discussed way back in 1925.

 

    Jefferson should be fast running southward in a separate lane, like light rail. There is room for it, and few crossings on the U.C. side.

 

    If the route on Short Vine is chosen northward, I'm not sure what can be done there. Traffic is fairly light, but there is all of that angled parking to contend with.

 

    Another short tunnel under MLK would do wonders. Traffic there is a mess; the streetcar should not add to traffic, neither should the streetcar stop for traffic.

 

 

    One more thing about the air pollution:

 

  "It's still more efficient than internal combustion engines in many different vehicles, and less polluting"

 

    The streetcar itself is less polluting than a number of automobiles conveying the equivalent number of passengers, but in order to reduce pollution, the streetcar has to result in fewer automobiles on the road. I don't think that is going to happen. Even if traffic is impeded in Over-the-Rhine, traffic can increase elsewhere.

 

    That said, getting the pollution away from where the people are is a legitimate goal. At Knowlton's Corner, a major bus transfer point, might be some of the worst pollution in Cincinnati. All of those buses idling at stops, in addition to so much traffic sitting on Hamilton Avenue, produce a lot of emissions, and those emissions do not disperse very well because they get trapped in a canyon of buildings. At least on I-275 there is room for the wind to disperse the emissions.

 

    Adding streetcars to Main Street and taking away some cars will improve air quality on Main Street. Adding streetcars won't improve air quality overall, and won't reduce dependence on foreign oil.

 

   

 

   

 

  The streetcar will NOT reduce congestion, reduce air pollution, or reduce dependence on foreign oil.  

 

Even if the first of these three asertions were true given the cirumstances, and you're probably right, the last two are absurd. If the Streetcar induces a higher OTR population, and that population drives less than they would compared to their alternative - which in Cincinnati's case would be more suburban- then it is inevitable that air pollution and dependence on any oil goes down.

 

    Oil consumption is not reduced by energy efficiency. See the peak oil thread for more.

 

   

 

If:

 

mass transit were available throughout every neighborhood in every city in this land, bicycle lanes replaced parking lanes on major roadways, retail/commercial use was forced to be commingled with residential, cars and any other individual transit mode were taxed at a high level, commercial and residential land was taxed at a high level based on square footage,

 

Then:

 

We would create prosperous high density cities; energy, oil, and water usage would plummet, and Americans would be thinner, happier, and more popular throughout the world.

 

See "smart growth" on the world wide Internets.  So there.

 

 

 

  Europe has mass transit available pretty much everywhere and their oil and energy use is higher than ours.

 

No it isn't, Europeans use about half the total amount of energy per capita as we do. 

 

 

   Europe has mass transit available pretty much everywhere and their oil and energy use is higher than ours.

 

 

Does Dick Cheney supply you with facts? Or is it Rupert Murdoch?

 

I don't mean to be an a55, but for real that is straight-up inaccurate.

 

Here's some data:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html

I understand the myriad other factors that come into play, but if I now take public transit and walk/bike to my destinations that I would have otherwise driven to, how does that not reduce oil and energy usage?

According to BP, Europe used more energy than the United States in 2009:

 

 

BP's Statistical Review of World Energy for 2009

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/09/bp-energy-statistics-consumption-reserves-energy

 

United States consumed 18,686,000 barrels

 

Europe consumed 19,372,000 barrels

 

  Admittedly, one could argue that the United States uses more oil depending on which countries are counted in Europe. Either way, it's a lot closer than expected, considering Europe's well developed mass transit system and our pathetic one.

 

  On a per capita basis, Europe has a lower use by a long shot.

 

   

  "Here's some data:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html"

 

    Those are per-capita uses. Obviously, the United States has a high per-capita energy use.

 

    "If I now take public transit and walk/bike to my destinations that I would have otherwise driven to, how does that not reduce oil and energy usage?"

 

    Quite simply, it reduces YOUR energy usage, but not everyone else's. Basicly, the amount of oil consumed in this country is constant; if you reduce your oil use by conservation, it just makes that oil available for your neighbor to use.

 

 

    This discussion is drifting away from the streetcar again. My point is that the streetcar will improve mobility and perhaps improve property values. Those are good reasons to build it. The streetcar will NOT reduce congestion, emissions, or dependence on foreign oil; those by themselves are not reasons to build the streetcar.

 

The "Europe" stat actually includes Eurasia.  The combined population of Europe and Russia is nearly double that of the United States.  Per capita oil consumption in England, France, Germany, and Italy might approach that of the United States, but it certainly does not in Eastern Europe and Russia. 

 

 

 

 

 

Europe has mass transit available pretty much everywhere and their oil and energy use is higher than ours.

 

Seriously, how old do you have to be to understand that without comparing energy consumption per capita these data aren't really all that useful to indicate which are the most wasteful countries?  Or are you just trollin'? 

 

Look, I can troll, too!  OMFG!!!111  Canada is ruining the planet!  Why do they hate the Earth???

 

 

CincyinDC, you can make your points without being obtuse.

 

And can you get another source that isn't advocating for global climate regulation and professes its belief in global warming? You know, something neutral?

True, but where's the fun in that? 

 

Seriously though, my obtuse comment was meant to be as ridiculous as "Europe has mass transit available pretty much everywhere and their oil and energy use is higher than ours."

 

I don't have time right now to do more than this, but Canada in 2005 does have higher energy usage per capita than the US.  This source is from the same one that 8th&St gave.

 

Country 2005

 

Qatar QAT 19.466,00

Iceland ISL 12.209,40

Bahrain BHR 11.180,00

Kuwait KWT 11.102,00

United Arab Emirates ARE 10.354,00

Luxembourg LUX 10.137,80

Trinidad and Tobago TTO 9.736,00

Netherlands Antilles ANT 9.057,00

Canada CAN 8.472,60

United States USA 7.885,90

Norway NOR 7.153,20

Brunei Darussalam BRN 7.062,00

Singapore SGP 6.932,00

Finland FIN 6.555,00

Saudi Arabia SAU 6.068,00

Australia AUS 5.897,50

 

CincyinDC, you can make your points without being obtuse.

 

"Solitary! A month!"

 

"Solitary! A month!"

 

Oh good...I can still login!  :) 

CincyinDC, you can make your points without being obtuse.

 

And can you get another source that isn't advocating for global climate regulation and professes its belief in global warming? You know, something neutral?

 

I'm pretty sure CincyinDC was using sarcasm to berate Eighth and State for being obtuse.

 

Also, isn't neutrality expressed in the method of data collection and examination?  The policy flows from there.  Policy is not biased simply because you say it is.  Without some sort of objective standard (neutrality- in the case of climate change, following the scientific method and duplicable research) everything devolves into positioning and rhetoric.

I would consider a source that denies, or even strongly questions, climate change not to be neutral. Popular opinion does not dictate science.

 

But, like LK said, methodology is the true determining factor.

Those countries using more energy per capital have a few things in common: extreme climates and/or tons of wealthy people who drive sports cars and/or mining & heavy industry. 

 

Also, US energy consumption is high because we historically have low unemployment compared to Europe, and our workplaces almost always have to be driven to.  That said there is no debate that construction of mass transit networks that move 20%+ of commuters from cars to electric trains would significantly reduce our overall energy consumption.  Repopulation of our quote-unquote inner cities moves many trips from cars and mass transit to feet.  Every percentage point of energy reduction in the US is much more total energy saved than a similar percentage decline in any other country.   

 

 

 

  "Here's some data:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html"

 

  Those are per-capita uses. Obviously, the United States has a high per-capita energy use.

 

  "If I now take public transit and walk/bike to my destinations that I would have otherwise driven to, how does that not reduce oil and energy usage?"

 

Quite simply, it reduces YOUR energy usage, but not everyone else's. Basicly, the amount of oil consumed in this country is constant; if you reduce your oil use by conservation, it just makes that oil available for your neighbor to use.

 

OK, I have completely stopped taking you seriously at this point, based on your statement that the amount of oil consumed is, like gravitational acceleration, a constant.  You are correct that this is drifting from Streetcar, though.

 

Let's drift back to Streetcar. Some tangential convo on energy consumption is relevant, but when it gets to a whole page I'll move it.

I thought that this headline was interesting:

 

Exemption sought for 3CDC headquarters project (http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2010/06/14/daily4.html?surround=lfn)

 

Which goes on to say that 3CDC is asking for tax breaks on a $6.8M rehab of a 37,000 sq. ft. building in the 1400 block of Race street, to house their headquarters with about 100 employees and a ground floor retail/restaurant space.

 

I thought it was interesting for this thread since it is on the proposed streetcar line, is a substantial development project, and 3CDC is obviously assuming that the blocks of Race between Washington park and Liberty will change a lot soon -- enough to support a restaurant.  I guess that park renewal could be enough of a boost, but it seems more likely they are banking on the streetcar?  Which I guess most people here are doing anyway...

 

I believe 3CDC had that site in their plans before the Streetcar moved as close to reality as it has. The site was driven more by the proximity to Vine and Washington Park. They are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

 

I think they are certainly hoping for a Streetcar boost because the building is obviously right on the line. But you can't really attribute anything 3CDC does right now to Streetcar influence, because the Streetcar isn't something 3CDC controls, while Washington Park and Vine are.

    "Those countries using more energy per capital have a few things in common: extreme climates and/or tons of wealthy people who drive sports cars and/or mining & heavy industry. "

 

    Also, the top 5 countries on that list of per capita consumption are all petroleum producers. They consume more oil because they have more oil. That's what I mean by saying that oil consumption is controlled by oil production, not the other way around. Also, a lot of oil is consumed in other ways besides automobiles. Some of the Middle Eastern countries for example use oil to fuel water desalination plants, which in this country would be considered a tremendous waste.

 

    Allright, enough of that for now. Thanks for the lively discussion everyone.  :-D

   

Someone noted that the number of Comments on Cincinnati.Com about the Flaming Jesus Story is rapidly approaching what some of the best streetcar stories have done.

 

Kind of explains it all, really.

^ Sounds like we are due for some "megaton" news on the streetcar, so Flaming Jesus can be dethroned.

^ Overdue

^ Sounds like we are due for some "megaton" news on the streetcar, so Flaming Jesus can be dethroned.

^ Overdue

 

Oh its coming.  Something is in the air.  Its been WAY too quiet.  First they tried to persuade public opinion with the big poll and they were criticized heavily - even by non supporters.  They became quiet, retreating to the meeting room with their bullseye streetcar dart posters, and decided to attack Bortz through the ethics route without his side of the story initially.  That backfired as well.  They will probably try a new angle this time.  My guess is they will find every remotely negative article/worst case scenario from the various cities across the US who have implemented any form of rail in the last 20 years and post it in huge headlines as a "warning."  It will probably coincide with the first phase of federal funding news, especially if the feds decide to give the city what they are requesting (in effect, they will try to take the "wind out of the sail" of the supporters. Basic PR guerilla tactics they have perfected over the years). 

 

As for Luken, I'll give him some credit.  The guy is persistent.  He is being used as a pawn by COAST and is terribly misinformed, but he gets right back up every time John and others point out his inconsistencies and exaggerations.

 

  Perhaps the streetcar is something that the media brings up on a dull news day. The burning of the statue and the gulf oil spill could keep them busy for a while.

 

^ You know, that could be a big part of it. Since papers are losing business, they know that they have to stir up even more (crap) than they used to on a slow news day to keep people talking about the paper.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100618/NEWS0108/6190318/Streetcar-may-take-your-parking-space

 

 

Barry Horstman is quickly becoming Glen Beck. 

It even made the Yahoo! front page:

 

 

STREETCAR MAY TAKE YOUR PARKING SPACE! DOOM!!

 

Typical alarmist Enquirer headline.

The Enquirer's vision for a vibrant downtown:

 

There is a spa in there!

The more they print these ridiculous articles and "letters to the editor" the more we read them and the more they (against) read them.  They win. 

Did you notice that they have already changed the headline and sub-headline? It's been changed on the Main Page too.

 

Ironically, if they printed both pro and anti streetcar articles they would stir up more interest and volume.

Living in Gin: Yahoo grabs your IP and gives you local headlines in their front page headline list.

 

Enquirer: Every day you find a new low of retarded.

Enquirer yet again erased my comment about the bias.  I can no longer find it anywhere.

 

This is incredible!

I find it difficult to "recommend" pro-streetcar articles.  Anyone else have this issue?

 

 

What browser do you use?

I find it difficult to "recommend" pro-streetcar articles. Anyone else have this issue?

 

It's part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

It worked fine for me on the the three browsers I use.

It could be the case that I can't recommend anti-streetcar articles, too.  I've tried Firefox, IE, Opera, and Chrome on WindowsXP-64, and on 2 different Ubuntu systems (32 and 64 bit) I've tried all the above except IE.  I actually figured it had to do with the fact that they're a Mickey Mouse operation.  Mentioning a vast right-wing conspiracy is just being obtuse.  :-D